Everyone knows that its tough to win
many races without a good knowledge of the racing rules. And if you want to learn the
racing rules, one of the best things you can do is study the appeals and cases.

The US Sailing Appeals and ISAF Cases are
authoritative interpretations and explanations of the rules. The appeals and cases are not
rules themselves and do not have the status of rules. However, they offer strong guidance
for protest committees (and therefore for sailors, too!).

The US Appeals Committee hears many
appeals each year from racing sailors around the country. Most of these are not published.
However, those appeals that clarify an important meaning of a rule or increase the
understanding of a complex rule are included in the appeals book.

The Rules Committee if the International
Sailing Federation (ISAF) reviews appeals that are decided (and submitted) by its member
national authorities. It chooses some of these for publication and inclusion in the ISAF
Casebook. These offer authoritative interpretations of the racing rules for sailors all
over the world.

Both the US appeals and the ISAF cases are
constantly evolving. When the new 1997-2000 rules were adopted last year, for example, the
appeals and cases were revised extensively to illustrate the application of the new rules.
The new appeals book and case book are finally available for sailors to buy. Here are some
highlights:

- Every appeal and case has been rewritten
as though it was decided under the new rules.

- A number of old appeals and cases have
been deleted because they were either incorrect, misleading or covered by one or more of
the new rules.

- All of the appeals and cases have been
renumbered sequentially so no numbers are missing.

- Out of more than 160 appeals and cases,
only a handful of decisions were changed as a result of the new rules. This is consistent
with the intent of the new rules, which was to maintain the way we "play the
game."

Though most of the appeals decisions are
not new, you can learn a lot about the new rules by seeing how they have been applied in
each case. Whether of not you studied the case and appeals in the past, now is a great
time to get the new, revised book and start learning. Continue reading to find a bunch of
notes, tips and highlights from the new cases and appeals.

Rule 10 - Opposite Tacks

1. When a starboard protest comes down to
the work of one boat versus another, how should it be decided?

How many times have you been in a
situation like this: You are on port tack and (in your opinion) you cross clearly ahead of
a starboard tacker. However, that boat claims they had to bear off to avoid you and they
protest. There was no contact, and there are no witnesses. Should you do a 720 or go to
the room? ISAF Case 50 offers the following guidelines on how juries should rule on
situations like this:

Case 50: "Rule 10 protests
involving no contact are very common, and protest committees tend to handle them in very
different ways. Some place an onus on the port-tack boat to prove conclusively that she
would have cleared the starboard-tack boat, even when the latters evidence is barely
worthy of credence. No such onus appears in rule 10. Other protest committees have been
reluctant to allow any rule 10 protest in the absence of contact, unless the
starboard-tack boat proves conclusively that contact would have occurred had she not
changed course. Both approaches are incorrect . . .

"A starboard-tack boat . . . need
not hold her course so as to prove, by hitting the part-tack boat, that a collision was
inevitable. Moreover, if she does so she will break rule 14. At a protest hearing, S must
establish either that contact would have occurred if she had held her course, or that
there was enough doubt that P could safely cross ahead to create a reasonable apprehension
of contact on Ss part and that it was unlikely that S would have no need to
take avoiding action (see the definition of Keep Clear).

"In her own defense, P must
present adequate evidence to establish either that S did not change course or that P would
have safely crossed ahead of S and that S had no need to take avoiding action. When, on
all the evidence, a protest committee finds that S did not change course or that there was
not a genuine and reasonable apprehension of collision on her part, it should dismiss her
protest. When, however, it is satisfied that S did change course, that there was
reasonable doubt that P could have crossed ahead, and that S was justified in taking
avoiding action by bearing away, then P should be disqualified . . ."

2. When a port-tack boat hails "Hold
your course," how does this affect a starboard tacker?

Weve all heard a port-tacker yell
"Hold you course" in close crossing situations. But what does this mean? Is it
binding on the starboard boat? Heres what US Appeal 27 says:

Appeal 27: "In response to the
questions regarding a boat that has been hailed to hold course, it is permissible to hail,
but the rules do not recognize such a hail as binding on the other boat. S can tack or
bear away at any time she is satisfied that a change of course will be necessary to avoid
a collision."

3. When a port-tack boat does not see a
starboard tacker, does this relieve her on any of her obligations under rule 10?

We know that a port-tack boat must keep a
good lookout - failing to look under the genoa is not an excuse for fouling a starboard
tacker. But how about when Ps view is really obstructed? In US Appeal 51, several
starboard-tackers blocked Ps view during the prestart. Heres what the decision
said:

Apeal 51: "The fact that P was
unable to see S until they were on a collision course cannot be used to relieve her of her
obligation to the right-of-way boat. The situation is not unlike one where a port-tack
boat barely clears a starboard-tack boat only to find another starboard-tack boat to
windward of the one she has just cleared.

"When she cannot see behind an
obstructions, the obligated boat must anticipate what might appear from the other side of
an obstruction. A burdened boat, when keeping clear of a group of boats holding right of
way, is responsible for anticipating what obligations she is incurring, even though she
cannot see all the boats."

Rule 16 - Changing Course

4. If a right-of-way boat does not have
contact with a give-way boat, can she break rule 16?

In my opinion, rule 16 is the most
fundamental rule in the book, and this question gets right to the crux of the matter. If
there is no contact and if the give-way boat does not have to perform any unseamanlike
maneuvers, could the right-of way boat break rule 16? In ISAF Case 60, a starboard tacker
(A) rounded the mark and changed course very close in front of a port tacker (B).
Heres what the committee said:

Case 60: ". . . A was free to
adopt any course she chose to reach the leeward mark, but she did not have the right to
luff into the path of B so close to B that B could not keep clear. Despite Bs
bearing away as hard as possible, a potentially serious collision would have occurred had
A not taken avoiding action by quickly luffing further. As it turned out, their combined
efforts narrowly averted such a collision, but that does not change the conclusion that in
this case when A changed course she did not give B the space [she needed] while
maneuvering [to keep clear] promptly in a seamanlike way, and therefore A broke rule
16."

In other words, the appeals committee is
saying that when a right-of-way boat (R) changes course near a give-way boat (G), R must
give G a chance to keep clear by her own actions. If R changes course and then the only
way for the boats to avoid contact is for R to change her course again, R did not give G
room to keep clear (as required by rule 16).

The definition of keep clear says that G
keeps clear of R if R "can sail her course with no need to take avoiding
action." If R must change her course to avoid contact, then G did not keep clear. If
G did not keep clear, then Rs original course change broke rule 16 (assuming G tried
her best to avoid contact.

5. Are there any times when course changes
by a right-of-way boat are not limited by rule 16?

Thats another good question. The old
rules included several exception to rule 35 (Altering Course), such as when the
right-of-way boat was luffing or rounding a mark, However, the idea in the new rules was
to get rid of exceptions.

As ISAF Case 86 explains, a right-of-way
boat is limited by rule 16 even when she is inside at a mark rounding. In Case 86, I (to
leeward) and O (to windward) approached a leeward mark to be rounded to port. I had the
right of way under rules 11 and 18.2(a), but her ability to change course was limited by
rule 16:

Case 86: "From the time the boats
jibed onto starboard tack until I jibed onto port to round the mark . . . I was obligated
by rule 18.4 to sail no farther from the mark than needed to sail her proper course . . .
The only other rule that limited Is rights under rules 11 and 18.2(a) was rule 16,
which required I to give O room to keep clear as she changed course . . ."

6. What exactly does rule 16 mean by
changing course?

This particular question was asked in the
US as a "question of interpretation." The appeals committee gave the following
answer:

"It is a change of course for a
boat to sail the arc of a circle or any other course where she is changing directions,
whether or not she moves her helm. To change course means to change compass
direction."

Rule 18 - Passing Marks
and Obstructions

15. When are boats considered to be
about to pass" a mark?

The first section of rule 18 is very
important because it tells us specifically when rule 18 goes into effect. It says rule 18
applies when boats are "about to pass" a mark or obstruction. But what, exactly,
does this mean? ISAF Case 84 gives a good explanation:

Case 84: "The phrase about
to pass has never been defined precisely, nor can it be. In approaching a mark,
there is no exact point at which a boat becomes about to pass it. Almost
always, a boat two hull lengths from a mark is about to pass it, but this is sometimes so
at a greater distance too.

"Not only is the distance from
the mark a factor, but the boats speed is also important, and other factors such as
the condition of wind and current and the amount of sail handling required before or
during the rounding may also be relevant. Moreover, the nearer the boat is to the mark the
more definitely she is about to pass it. The answer to the question depends upon the
particular circumstances of each situation."

16. What does rule 18 mean by the word
room?

The first place we should look, or course,
is at the definition of "room" in the back of the rulebook. In addition, US
Appeal 20 offers a little more insight about what "constitutes room."

Appeal 20: "Room is the space a
boat needs to pass the mark in a seamanlike way, not the space she would take to pass the
mark in a tactically desirable manner."

17. When a boat without right of way is
inside at a mark rounding, how much room can she take?

According to rule 18, when the boat
thats inside at a mark or obstruction has the right of way, the outside boat must
keep clear, and the inside boat can make a tactical, or proper course, rounding. But what
happens when the inside boat does not have the right of way? In this situation,
rule 18 says the outside boat must give the inside boat room to pass the mark. But how
much room can the inside boat take, and how much room must the outside boat give her? ISAF
Case 21 explains:

Case 21: ". . . As the definition
states, the word room in rule 18.2(a) means the space needed by an inside boat
without right of way, which in the existing conditions is handled in a seaman like way, to
pass promptly between the outside boat and the mark or obstruction.

"The term existing
conditions" deserves some consideration. For example, the inside one of two dinghies
approaching a mark on a placid lake in light air will need and can be satisfied with
relatively little space beyond her own beam. At the other extreme, when two keelboats, on
open water with steep seas, are approaching a mark that is being tossed about widely and
unpredictably, the inside boat may need a full hull length of room or even more to ensure
safety.

"The phrase in a seamanlike
way applies to both boats. First, it addresses the outside boat, saying that she
must provide enough room so that the inside boat nee not make extraordinary or abnormal
maneuvers to keep clear of her and the mark. It also addresses the inside boat. She is not
entitled to complain of insufficient room if she fails to execute with reasonable
efficiency the handling of her helm, sheets and sails during a rounding."

 Get a copy of the appeals:

- If you live in the U.S., the best place
to buy a copy of the appeals and cases book is from:

All
contents are copyright (c) 1998 by Northern Breezes, Inc. All information contained within
is deemed reliable but carries no guarantees. Reproduction of any part or whole of this
publication in any form by mechanical or electronic means, including information retrieval
is prohibited except by consent of the publisher.